IOC Submission No. 50 Received 2 October 2020 - Parliament ...

IOC Submission No. 50
                                                                                Received 2 October 2020

2 October 2020

Mr Steve McGhie MP
Chair
Integrity and Oversight Committee
Parliament of Victoria
Spring Street, East Melbourne

Submission to the Inquiry into Education and Prevention Functions of Victoria's Integrity Agencies

The Australian Institute of Professional Investigators (‘AIPI’) is pleased to provide a response to the
Integrity and Oversight Committee to assist with addressing the terms of reference of the above
inquiry.

The AIPI conducted a survey of our national membership to seek responses to the questions asked
by the Integrity and Oversight Committee. The majority of responses were received from members
from our Victoria chapter (58% of response received) with some responses from members of
interstate chapters (NSW – 13%, WA – 13%, SA - 8%, Queensland 4%).

Overwhelmingly the responses related to IBAC (75%) and the Victorian Ombudsman (63%) but there
were a number of useful responses in relation to the operation of integrity agencies in other states.

The questions asked of the members were as follows:

1. Are there aspects of the education and corruption prevention functions of any of the Victorian
   Integrity Agencies that you believe are done particularly well? Please nominate the agency and
   the way in which you believe education and corruption prevention functions are operating
   effectively.
2. Are there aspects of the education and corruption prevention functions of any of the Victorian
   Integrity Agencies that you believe could be improved? Please nominate the agency and the way
   in which you believe that its education and corruption prevention functions could be improved.
3. Are you able to offer comments as to what you have seen in other Integrity Agencies around
   Australia that inhibit the performance of the agency in terms of its education and prevention
   function?
4. Are you able to offer comments as to what you have seen in other Integrity Agencies around
   Australia that could be adopted in Victoria?
5. Do you have any comments about how the various Integrity Agencies of the Commonwealth and
   States and Territories could coordinate more effectively?

We outline below the responses provided by AIPI members to these questions Which have been
presented verbatim from the survey responses.

Question 1

Are there aspects of the education and corruption prevention functions of any of the Victorian
Integrity Agencies that you believe are done particularly well? Please nominate the agency and
the way in which you believe education and corruption prevention functions are operating
effectively.

      Not aware of any specific education functions. IBAC appears to be openly clear and
       transparent in respect to their operational and objective goals. This is noted through their
       education and corruption prevention literature shared on their public website. It’s
       interesting to note that IBAC are not only clear and transparent around education and
       corruption prevention functions through literature obtained on their website, they are also
       proactive by undertaking numerous functions outside the office space. Examples of these
       functions undertaken are through Corruption Prevention forums. These forums cover a vast
       array of different types of audience such as Senior Leaders within government departments
       to Police recruits at the Victoria Police Academy, these programs allow information to filter
       and collective be shared throughout these departments to the grass root employee/s. The
       literature shared on IBAC’s website covers annual, special, research and intelligence reports,
       newsletters, e-news, media releases, fact sheets and case studies along with numerous links
       to law libraries and other resources providing another example of the organisation being
       transparent of their operational objective and goals. There was also a Community
       Awareness Campaign embark on to increase visits to the IBAC website for a short period of
       time, however, there doesn’t appear to be any information available on the website to
       measure the success of this campaign. If you were to parallel their values, vision, purpose
       and focus areas, you would come to the conclusion that they are clear to the point and
       consistent with other public service departments throughout our country.
      The Victorian Ombudsman provides quality training on external Complaints Management as
       well as clear and concise investigation reports, which are educational with practical
       recommendations 'lessons learnt' and the 'Good Practice Guides' are very helpful.
      IBAC provide a very good range of online research and educational materials, including
       investigation and research reports and guidance. IBAC hosted the 2019 APSACC conference
       in Melbourne which was excellent in education for prevention, detection and response to
       integrity related issues.
      IBAC did have information sessions. Not sure if they still do.
      As a former employee (Investigations) of IBAC, I did not see any corruption prevention
       measures rolled out or implemented to the public sector. I must qualify this comment as I
       was a member of the greenfield organisation and it was organised chaos initially. (Note: it
       Appears this comment relates to the period immediately following the formation of IBAC
       and does not necessarily represent the current state).
      IBAC are very willing to present to industry groups. They have presented several times to
       AIPI. They also hold seminars in relation to corruption prevention.
      IBAC - Provide education and advice via the IBAC website and are available for corruption
       preventative functions.

Question 2

Are there aspects of the education and corruption prevention functions of any of the Victorian
Integrity Agencies that you believe could be improved? Please nominate the agency and the way
in which you believe that its education and corruption prevention functions could be improved.

      Both IBAC and the Ombudsman don't market their education functions well. The corruption
       prevention functions are clear when they appear in the media.
      Education plays a fundamental role against corruption. It plays a crucial role in the efforts to
       reduce and the prevention of corruption. I believe further educational goals can be achieved
       in a diverse way such as more audio – visual material on the IBAC website, for those who are
       illiterate or a person/s that lack cultural awareness along with additional Community
       Awareness Campaigns for longer periods of time, so that it becomes second nature for
       individuals to report corruption. Example of this would be Crime Stoppers, if we hear or see
       something that we believe is breaking the law we have been educated through community
       campaigns to call Crime Stoppers. We have not been educated consistently in respect to
       reporting corruption and corruption prevention. A lack of Community Awareness education
       through television or radio campaigns makes it hard for members of the community to be
       aware of who and where to report corruption. These campaigns should also explain some of
       the negative effects of corruption such as financial and governance complications, without
       further community engagement campaigns it risks corruption not being reported making it
       too hard for members of the community to lodge a complaint. If we were to be realistic, not
       all members of the community take notice of educational topics located on Twitter,
       Facebook and LinkedIn around corruption prevention unless they are involved in this type of
       activity.
      More awareness raising by the VI and VIO, who in my view are much less visible than the VO
       and IBAC (at least in our/AIPI space). I think there is opportunity, in particular, for the VIO to
       raise awareness of who they are and what they do, because their role importance is
       increasing.
      More education as to the extent of preliminary assessment/investigation an agency can
       perform in order to determine a matter should be reported to IBAC.
      More education as to what constitutes a mandatory report to IBAC in terms of the
       thresholds (i.e. still need more clarity as to what IBAC will and will not investigate, this has
       not been adequately addressed.
      More education and information as to protections afforded a whistleblower (I recently saw
       IBAC's online complaint/report that you fill in and it lacks information about protection,
       really only asks if wish to remain anonymous or not).
      More education as to Investigation Guidelines. IBAC had what I thought was a good
       Guideline you could download from their website but was taken down over 12 months ago
       for updating and has not been reposted to their website.
      More prevention information in the form of policy, procedure and training packs that can be
       downloaded, which would help achieve greater consistency across the Vic Public Sector.
      More education/prevention aimed at whistleblowers to reduce the number of serial
       vexatious complainants lacking evidence, which IBAC on-refer to the relevant Agency (e.g. a
       Code of Conduct for Whistleblowers to be eligible for protection and consideration). Can
       more be done to weed out such complaints and have complainants better consider their
       actions and other options.

   A larger PR presence promoting what they actually do for the community would be an
       improvement and more supportive of their charter.
      At the present time, IBAC have a Fraud and Corruption Control Checklist. They could
       produce more guidance on how to control fraud and corruption in the public sector.
      Each of the agencies could provide pro-active advice to various levels of government in
       managing their corruption prevention capabilities.
      If they conduct these activities then awareness of them could definitely be improved, as I
       was not aware they conduct educational activities.
      IBAC should develop a corruption framework that is applicable to all agencies and require
       this framework to be independently assessed for design and operational effectiveness on a
       biennial basis. The assessment must be forwarded to IBAC for review and follow-up where
       necessary i.e. where improvement recommendations have not been implemented since the
       previous assessment.
      All agencies should substantially increase the promotion of whistleblower protections.

Question 3

Are you able to offer comments as to what you have seen in other Integrity Agencies around
Australia that inhibit the performance of the agency in terms of its education and prevention
function?

      Insufficient revenue impacts agencies in terms of its education and prevention functions. It
       doesn’t allow for effective planning and the capacity to make long term expansion programs
       due to lack of budget resources.
      ICAC NSW seem to have a higher media profile than IBAC but largely due to being an older
       organisation and I expect is larger in terms of staff and resources. This means, that IBAC's
       lower profile and a perception of (at least in its early years) of been a 'toothless tiger', IBAC
       has not produced as many 'learnings' from investigations as ICAC NSW has, especially arising
       from public hearings. IBAC's definition of serious corrupt conduct appears too high, meaning
       significant integrity issues are not properly addressed.
      Lack of cooperation nationally.
      South Australia ICAC provides regular information sessions to the public. Also provides
       training of processes to the public sector but declines to provide training to contractors,
       notwithstanding that they are expected to understand the legislation and their
       responsibilities.
      ACT Integrity Commission and NSW ICAC education and corruption prevention functions
       work well.

Question 4

Are you able to offer comments as to what you have seen in other Integrity Agencies around
Australia that could be adopted in Victoria?

      IBAC should take steps to encourage and facilitate legitimate reporting of wrongdoing,
       including providing agency employees with brochures and posters.
      Government agency employees should be subject to annual online training against their
       personal performance appraisal.
      All government agencies’ intranets could be used to advertise education and corruption
       preventions methods.

   Further community engagement campaigns on television and radio.
      Rural and regional outreach programs similar to ICAC for non-metropolitan areas throughout
       Victoria should be undertaken if not currently in place. These visits are to raise awareness of
       corruption risks, prevention information and how to actively report corruption.
      ICAC NSW seem to have a lower threshold (definitions of corrupt conduct versus serious
       corrupt conduct etc.) for conducting investigations, which I think would benefit IBAC (but
       too low and not too broad, needs balance).
      I think that some have strayed outside their remit, like NSW ICAC, some new broader
       powers to investigate more thoroughly matters that are brought to their attention.
      ICAC NSW have a regular program of webinars which are well attended.
      Promotion of the positive aspects of corruption prevention to reduce the stigma place on
       whistleblowers.

Question 5

Do you have any comments about how the various Integrity Agencies of the Commonwealth and
States and Territories could coordinate more effectively?

      Each jurisdiction would follow their own policies and procedures implemented through their
       particular legislation, however, regular multi-jurisdictional round-table discussions could
       take place, highlighting trends and activities within their state / territory around education
       and corruption prevention. This can be achieved by providing live case studies to examine
       and establish where further education could be implemented to eliminate or minimize
       corruption, sharing information is extremely important and effective way to learn. Each
       jurisdiction should budget for an international guest speaker employed within a similar
       department each year from around the world to provide insight into what is working and
       what isn’t working around education and corruption prevention. This allows for the
       introduction of new ideas and what has and hasn’t worked surrounding education and
       corruption prevention.
      It is difficult to get better coordination without a Commonwealth Integrity body to facilitate
       that coordination. Australia needs a Federal ICAC, without which we have a significant gap in
       the country wide integrity framework.
      Reach out to all internal investigation or integrity teams in organisations be they
       Government or private.
      Meeting to discuss what works well and not so well in each agency.
      Increased sharing of information instead of withholding on the basis of confidentiality.
       MOUs in place between every agency would assist.
      They could have a peak association that would coordinate their interaction and exchange of
       ideas. This would need to be supported by regular meetings, conferences and webinars.
      Each have their own manner of dealing with the aspects of corruption prevention based on
       the different needs and legislative processes in setting up the agency. However, from an
       education perspective there should be no differences in the messaging to the audience
       therefore a more consistent approach and learnings from each jurisdiction and agency
       would be an advantage.
      The lack of information sharing and cohesiveness is commonly exploited by criminals
       committing crimes across borders or jurisdictions.
      We need a federal ICAC and, hopefully, the various anti-corruption agencies would already
       be sharing information as offending can cross State and Territory borders.

   I believe there is scope for professional private investigators to be afforded opportunities for
        input with integrity agencies.

Please note that the responses provided do not necessarily represent the views of the AIPI. Should
you have any questions about our responses please contact me on

We trust this information is of assistance to the inquiry.

Kind regards,

Peter Morris
President – Australian Institute of Professional Investigators